Public understanding of science in Chile: adaption of instruments and measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La comprensión pública de la ciencia se ha consolidado como campo de investigación teórica y aplicada en los principales países desarrollados, desde hace más de tres décadas. La relación ciencia-público ha sido medida a través de encuestas aplicadas al público en general, entre las que destacan la de la National Science Foundation, en Estados Unidos, y el Eurobarómetro, en la Unión Europea, las cuales se han convertido en instrumentos internacionales de referencia. En América Latina, a diferencia de lo anterior, recién en la última década se han iniciado con sistematicidad este tipo de mediciones. Este artículo presenta resultados generales de la primera medición de interés, conocimiento y percepción de ciencia a nivel regional dentro de Chile. Se aplicó una encuesta en cuatro capitales regionales del sur del país, utilizándose un cuestionario adaptado a partir de los instrumentos internacionales de referencia, lo cual permite su comparación con mediciones internacionales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".